The Indians wore cotton dresses, and carried bows of cane, and arrows also of cane with iron at the point. Such was the equipment of the Indians, and they marched under the command of Pharnazathres the son of Artabates. [...] The eastern Ethiopians- for two nations of this name served in the army- were marshalled with the Indians. They differed in nothing from the other Ethiopians, save in their language, and the character of their hair. For the eastern Ethiopians have straight hair, while they of Libya are more woolly-haired than any other people in the world.

Arrian, Anabasis, Book 8:

The appearance of the inhabitants, too, is not so far different in India and Ethiopia; the southern Indians resemble the Ethiopians a good deal, and, are black of countenance, and their hair black also, only they are not as snub-nosed or so woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; but the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians in appearance.

----

Looks as Caucasoid with dark skin to me.... not as australoidThe Northindians were just lighter in pigmentation because of climate, in southindia its much hotter and sunheater than in kashmir... i think the Aryans inhabited all of India..... And arose from there

The Enemies of Aryas are both described as red haired and red beard with light red eyes as well as the black skinned nose and mouthless

for instance

The Rakshasa [Enemy of Aryans or Demon] ... Of huge body and great strength of red hair, red eyes and red beard, he was terrible to behold, he came pressing deep the world with tread. *Mahabharata Section CLXV

__________________
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ~ Adolf Hitler

Europeans are a mixture of several different tribes who all happen to belong to the White race - Celtic, Germanic, Gallic, Scythian, etc.

Indians are a mixture of of different races. There are no pure White Indians. The Parsi are probably the closest to being White, yet obviously they have a good deal of non-White admixture.

Exactly, BUt i should remind you in your mention of Europeans because Tribe doesn't transalte to race, Celts, , Gauls, Scyths etc-were semi-homogenous cultures, not individual races, Europe has a share of non-europid admixture like every continent and it's indigenous populations , wich is what contributes for the most part to our variation in phenotype, as in all other races.

Europeans are a mixture of several different tribes who all happen to belong to the White race - Celtic, Germanic, Gallic, Scythian, etc.

Indians are a mixture of of different races. There are no pure White Indians. The Parsi are probably the closest to being White, yet obviously they have a good deal of non-White admixture.

Its not prooven who were the Scythians, if they were indo-european even. Maybe they were Hunic or Ural-Altaic like the Fins and Turks. Most probably they were iranian but Not even Iranians are Aryans, only Indians are Aryans. The Avesta were the Word Aryan pops up is written later than the Vedic Scriptures. Probably those Rakshasa with Red Hair,Eyes and Beard were Scythian/Iranian or whatever Invaders but they were not Aryan. The Aryans describe themselfes differently. So there were probably invasions into India but it was not the Aryans who were White and invaded India but other tribes and peoples like Iranic,Turkic,Greek [Alexander the Great with his Armies] etc. etc.

Just like the Aryans described the "Barbarians with read hair beard and eyes" as "terrible to behold" the greeks described them as "ugly and cowardly". The greek superiority stems "from their medium skin tone"
Most ancient writers were from the Southern European civilisations, and generally took the view that northerners were barbarians. Pale skin and light hair were described as signs of barbarism by Polemon of Laodicea in his book Physiognomica.[4] Pseudo-Aristotle[5] noted differences between Greeks and the people of the north, believing that Greek superiority was visible in their medium skin tone, as opposed to pale northerners and dark southerners and Africans. He claimed that blue eyes were a sign of a cowardly nature, and that they indicated poor eyesight

__________________
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ~ Adolf Hitler

Just like the Aryans described the "Barbarians with read hair beard and eyes" as "terrible to behold" the greeks described them as "ugly and cowardly". The greek superiority stems "from their medium skin tone"
Most ancient writers were from the Southern European civilisations, and generally took the view that northerners were barbarians. Pale skin and light hair were described as signs of barbarism by Polemon of Laodicea in his book Physiognomica.[4] Pseudo-Aristotle[5] noted differences between Greeks and the people of the north, believing that Greek superiority was visible in their medium skin tone, as opposed to pale northerners and dark southerners and Africans. He claimed that blue eyes were a sign of a cowardly nature, and that they indicated poor eyesight

The word barbarian has changed over time. Today it's synonymous with savage or primitive, but it used to mean stranger/outlander/foreigner, or someone that speaks a different language. So to a Greek, all non-greeks were barbarians, since those people were not from Greece.

mid-14c. (adj.), from M.L. barbarinus (cf. O.Fr. barbarin "Berber, pagan, Saracen, barbarian"), from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from PIE base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan"). Greek barbaroi (n.) meant "all that are not Greek," but especially the Medes and Persians. Originally not entirely pejorative, its sense darkened after the Persian wars. The Romans (technically themselves barbaroi) took up the word and applied it to tribes or nations which had no Greek or Roman accomplishments. The noun is from late 14c., "person speaking a language different from one's own," also (c.1400) "native of the Barbary coast;" meaning "rude, wild person" is from 1610s.

The word barbarian has changed over time. Today it's synonymous with savage or primitive, but it used to mean stranger/outlander/foreigner, or someone that speaks a different language. So to a Greek, all non-greeks were barbarians, since those people were not from Greece.

mid-14c. (adj.), from M.L. barbarinus (cf. O.Fr. barbarin "Berber, pagan, Saracen, barbarian"), from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from PIE base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan"). Greek barbaroi (n.) meant "all that are not Greek," but especially the Medes and Persians. Originally not entirely pejorative, its sense darkened after the Persian wars. The Romans (technically themselves barbaroi) took up the word and applied it to tribes or nations which had no Greek or Roman accomplishments. The noun is from late 14c., "person speaking a language different from one's own," also (c.1400) "native of the Barbary coast;" meaning "rude, wild person" is from 1610s.

Yes true. However the Greeks do considered themselfes as superior to all other nationalities. The Old Indians also considered themselfes superior i mean they called themselfes "Aryans" which means in sanskrit "The Noble Ones".

Note: Probably every nation considers himself as superior to another nation. Even Slavs calls the Germans "Nemci" which stems from "Nem"="The one who is not able to speak".

__________________
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ~ Adolf Hitler

The Scythian language was Indo-European/Aryan. They inhabited a large area centered around the northern coast of the Black Sea and extending from the Pontic Steppe into the Ukraine:

There were "Black and White" Scythians according to ancient depictions. So probably they were a mixed community, just like the Huns, there were also "black and white" huns. However indo-european=!=aryan ... just because we are a loosely connected languages family doesnt mean all of them are aryans.... only vedics are aryans, and iranics adopted the terminus for themselfes much later..... maybe the iranians are black today because the aryans invaded them..... emperor bharata of greater india ruled over large parts of iran...... from iran onwards the aryans spread to caucasus and eastern europe their culture, some slavic nations are considered to got their name from iranic tribes so why not the high frequency of R1a?

__________________
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ~ Adolf Hitler

Yes true. However the Greeks do considered themselfes as superior to all other nationalities. The Old Indians also considered themselfes superior i mean they called themselfes "Aryans" which means in sanskrit "The Noble Ones".

They called themselves Ayran because they had Aryan ancestors, but those Old Indians who called themselves Aryans were still mixed with non-Aryans. They just were not pure Dravidians or whatever term you wish to use for the indigenous aboriginal inhabitants of India who are so dark that they are nearly black-skinned:

There were "Black and White" Scythians according to ancient depictions. So probably they were a mixed community, just like the Huns, there were also "black and white" huns. However indo-european=!=aryan ... just because we are a loosely connected languages family doesnt mean all of them are aryans.... only vedics are aryans, and iranics adopted the terminus for themselfes much later..... maybe the iranians are black today because the aryans invaded them..... emperor bharata of greater india ruled over large parts of iran...... from iran onwards the aryans spread to caucasus and eastern europe their culture, some slavic nations are considered to got their name from iranic tribes so why not the high frequency of R1a?

As you can see the inhabitants of the Crimean and the Pontic belong to the White European phenotype:

Normal Indians dont look like this, those are Raskshasa/Non-Aryans/Demons of wicked state of mind, not twice born, "black covered nose and mouthless". Reall Indians look different. And Austro-Asiatics may even not be indigenous to India, they arrived from Southeast Asia new study links. Austro-Asiatics are an minority.

As you can see the inhabitants of the Crimean and the Pontic belong to the White European phenotype:

Crimean girls:

Yes they are white obviously but according to ancient depictions there were so called "black and white" scythians just like "black and white" huns, so i guess they were already a mixed community. However they were not the Vedic Aryans People. They are a different Tribe of Peoples.

Normal Indians dont look like this, those are Raskshasa/Non-Aryans/Demons of wicked state of mind, not twice born, "black covered nose and mouthless". Reall Indians look different. And Austro-Asiatics may even not be indigenous to India, they arrived from Southeast Asia new study links. Austro-Asiatics are an minority.

The two black men in the photos that you identified as Austro-Asiatics are obviously Negroid; however the two dark-skinned Dravidian Indians in the photos that I posted are not Negroid; they are in fact what the indigenous inhabitants of India look like.

The two black men in the photos that you identified as Austro-Asiatics are obviously Negroid; however the two dark-skinned Dravidian Indians in the photos that I posted are not Negroid; they are in fact what the indigenous inhabitants of India look like.

They are Austro-Asiatic not Negroid eventhough they resemble Negroid. I dont know how many people in india look like your pictures but i know i would spot them immediately among a gypsy crowd as non-gypsies. If you go from the point of view that gypsies are the normal indians than those guys look nothing like us.

__________________
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ~ Adolf Hitler

Yes they are white obviously but according to ancient depictions there were so called "black and white" scythians just like "black and white" huns, so i guess they were already a mixed community. However they were not the Vedic Aryans People. They are a different Tribe of Peoples.

In Gaelic the Scots (who are of Scythian ancestry) distinguished between the Vikings of Norway and the Vikings of Denmark by calling the former Fionngall ("fair-strangers") and Dubhgall ("dark-strangers"); because theNorse usually had blonde hair, whereas the Danes were dark-haired.

The designations you refer to among the Scythians would have referred to hair color, not skin pigmentation.

In Gaelic the Scots (who are of Scythian ancestry) distinguished between the Vikings of Norway and the Vikings of Denmark by calling the former Fionngall ("fair-strangers") and Dubhgall ("dark-strangers"); because theNorse usually had blonde hair, whereas the Danes were dark-haired.

The designations you refer to among the Scythians would have referred to hair color, not skin pigmentation.

What i acutally refer to is that there were many tribes called scythians who resembled them in lifestyle just like there are many tribes called gypsies but who are not roma. The original scythians were iranics, but also slavs and germanics were called scythians at times. However the Scythians are most probably the Slavic Race.

__________________
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ~ Adolf Hitler

They are Austro-Asiatic not Negroid eventhough they resemble Negroid. I dont know how many people in india look like your pictures but i know i would spot them immediately among a gypsy crowd as non-gypsies. If you go from the point of view that gypsies are the normal indians than those guys look nothing like us.

I don't think anyone considers Gypsies to be the "norm" as far as what the typical, average, inhabitant of India looks like.

Gypsies left India long ago, like the Jews who left Israel and migrated west into Europe. Over the centuries, there has been some European admixture in both groups, which has resulted in a less "native" look.